Friday, July 02, 2010

Chris Hallquist thought it was weird that I was jumping from talking point to talking point without responding to the criticisms I had raised. Here is my response:

First, I posed two questions. One had to do with what you thought we did have hard evidence for. The second had to do with how you would regard the evidence if it was presented about the life of Rabbi Hillel, a person about whom no supernatural claims are made that I know of. I don’t think I’m just jumping from talking point to talking point, I am first, trying to get a sense of what will count as evidence here, and second, how the supernatural character of Jesus’ claims is affecting the rules of evidence. If this were about Hillel, it seems to me that most of us would be happy with the amount of evidence provided, as opposed to discounting it all because it came from supporters. I would have thought that testimony in the Gospels is at least some evidence, even if that evidence is defeasible.

My own view is that the supernatural element in these works is going to incline people towards skepticism to varying degrees, depending on the remainder of your belief system. So when I talk about this sort of thing, I am inclined to bracket the effect of the supernatural on one's priors, and ask what kind of evidence is actually there. Is there something that is difficult for the naturalist to explain, setting aside the question of whether a supernaturalist option might be deemed intellectually feasible.
My other point by way of response is taht skepticism about the sources solve the explanatory problems. There is hard evidence for the Persecution of Nero, and there is also hard evidence (Josephus) for the martyrdom of James the Lord’s brother. Martyrdom doesn’t prove the truth of the beliefs in question, but it does prove a high likelihood for the sincerity of those beliefs. So something had to have convinced those people that Jesus was Lord. What could that be? If nothing like the Jesus story was true, and they were all just making it up as they went along, why wouldn’t they head for the exits when Nero started rounding Christians up and killing them? As for James, what would convince you that your brother was the Lord? Why go on missionary journeys where you get arrested time after time unless there was something to convince you that the truth about God was to be found in Christ crucified and resurrected? If we impugn all the sources, then you’re left with a bunch of people butting heads with Jewish leaders, and ultimately with the Roman emperor, but why?

At least a hallucination theory gives you a proposed explanation for why these people have the convictions that they do.

19 comments:

>If we impugn all the sources, then you’re left with a bunch of people butting heads with Jewish leaders, and ultimately with the Roman emperor, but why?

Actually, if we impunge all the sources, we have no reason to think anyone was butting heads with anyone. Not that I want to impunge all the sources, but you seem to have trouble understanding that having some evidence for one bit of the story, that doesn't mean you have good reason to believe the entire story.

This is particularly clear in the case of Nero's persecution. Christian tradition says both Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome, but we don't find this tradition written down until some time after the first reports of Nero's persecution. Obviously most of the Christians persecuted in Rome were not leaders, so even if the leaders were making it up, this wouldn't have directly affected whether Nero's victims would have recanted. As for the leaders, my hunch is that Paul probably really was executed in Rome (Acts does place him there) and the story was later enlarged to include Peter, but this is just a guess. Again, my *guess* that Paul was sincere, though we have no guarantee of it--Joseph Smith was killed by a mob, but there's good reason to think he was an outright charlatan.

If the leaders were just telling stories how did they convince people. It is one thing to claim to find a magical set of golden plates which only you can read recording events from hundreds of years ago it is another to convince people of events open to investigation from about thirty years ago. Joseph Smith was killed by a angry mob because his gun ran out of bullets. There is no evidence he had any chance to retract his story. It may be claimed Paul died a similar way though if the book of Acts is true he had a long time in jail to reconsider. But the question is how he convinced other people to join him.

Why didn't they head for the exits when Nero started rounding them up?

Why didn't people head for the exits when the Nazis started rounding people up?

And, of course, all those Christians died for a lie.

They set fire to Rome. That was a lie. They died for a lie.

They did not die for a faith in the resurrection. In fact, Christian converts openly scoffed at the idea of their god choosing to raise corpses.

ERICis another to convince people of events open to investigation from about thirty years ago.

CARRGosh, there are people who are convinced the Bush administration planned 9/11.

Paul knew how gullible Christians were.

2 Corinthians 11For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.

Paul knew how easy it was to get Christians to believe false things.

And Paul knew perfectly well that Christians were persecuted on the issue of circumcision,and claimed that you could tell he was against circumcision because he was being persecuted.

'Brothers, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted?

Paul is clear.

If he is being persecuted, how on earth can people believe he is preaching circumcision?

Obviously it never entered Paul's head that Christians were being persecuted on the issue of resurrection.

As for Mormons, Joseph Smith used to read the Book of Esther for comfort. I guess Christians would claim that that proves it wasn't a forgery, because Smith read it as though it was genuine.

As for Josephus on James, Josephus records that the death of James shocked Jews , and then Jesus was installed as the High Priest.

Why would the death of a blasphemer shock Jews into appointing a Jesus, as High Priest?

Here's the problem with the "they wouldn't be martyred if what happened wasn't true":

9 years ago several men martyred themselves by blowing up a couple of buildings in New York, no doubt believing they were doing a just, good thing.

What evidence did they have that convinced them that it was God's will....or that they would be instantly rewarded?

none. They had no evidence other than what their religious leaders had given them and whatever stories and theologies they had been exposed to.

So....just because people endure extreme things doesn't mean everything they believe is true.

Buddhist monks setting themselves on fire? For what reason would they do such a thing?

People are willing to die for the things they think are important whether or not the evidence for their assumptions are true.

Now...I don't put forth these points as a true skeptic....more as a devil's advocate because it seems as if the same standard is not being applied to your argument that would be applied to any other similar examples from other religions.

Mike,From what I have read, Joseph Smith had the chance to escape imprisonment and death, but chose to submit instead. That doesn't make me think that the Golden Plates were real.....but it does wipe out the idea that he might have recanted if given the chance and only happened to die before he could.

Mike Erich has a good point when he says, "the question is how [Paul] convinced other people to join him". Good question indeed. One of the most astonishing passages in the entire NT is not a Gospel account of one or another miracle, but the simple statement at the closing of Paul's Letter to the Philippians (3:22).

"All the saints greet you, especially those of Caesar's household".

Think about that for a moment. It means that Paul not only convinced “other people” , but managed to win over at least some of his jailers! (Philippians was written from prison.) Now Roman prisons were no picnic, believe me. They had a lot more in common with Dachau than Danbury. And the “members of Caesar’s household” could see every day what acceptance of the Gospel had brought Paul – loss of freedom, chains, confinement to an unlit, dank, unfurnished cell, most likely below ground, filth and stink, “food” that would probably turn your stomach, daily humiliations… And yet, observing all this, and in the full knowledge that listening to and agreeing with Paul could easily mean the same treatment for themselves, Paul still managed to win many of them over!

Who would willingly believe a falsehood, or a made-up story, faced with that very real possibility?

Who would willingly believe a falsehood, or a made-up story, faced with that very real possibility?

Obviously, people who did not think the story was made up. It is my understanding that many Gentiles were attracted to Judaism during this time period. They were known as "God-Fearers" by the Jews. I think it is anachronistic to think that superstitious, pre-enlightenment people living in first century Palestine were all a bunch of hyper-skeptics who were blown away by all the unimpeachable evidence that God just incarnated himself as an itinerant rabbi and got himself executed on purpose to usher in the kingdom of God.

More than likely these folks were just trading in one superstition for another. And Paul's antinomian Christianity would be far more attractive than Jewish Christianity which would have still held on to Torah observance. No adult convert to Judaism or Jewish Christianity wants to mutilate his penis to become a member. Paul's religion was easy-breezy believism--just believe in the Messiah and you are good to go for the resurrection.

There is no way to label Paul's preaching "easy breezy believism" and retain a shred of intellectual credibility or dignity. The most cursory reading of the NT shows that 1st Century believers were well aware that acceptance of the faith meant hardship, rejection by family and friends, persecution, renunciation of much that one held dear, and the real possibility of martyrdom. Jesus Himself likened following Him to "taking up the cross", and warned that "the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head". No promises of Paradise and 72 virgins here! In fact, the picture being painted for the prospective convert is so bleak that I can't imagine anyone being attracted to it who hadn't been convinced of its objective Truth.

It is true will die for a long established belief that has already been supported for generations the question is how that belief got established in the first place. (My account of Joseph Smith's martyrdom is from the Mormons own accounts.) Circumcision was an issue because it was an obvious external sign of whether you still clung to Judaism or had gone on to Christianity, but Paul clearly believed other things beside circumcision were important. This included the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:1-11; Romans 1:4, 4:24,25) and justification by faith (Romans 3:21-31; Galatians 2:15-21; 2 Corinthians 5:14,16). (If we do not believe the Biblical accounts on this why should we believe them regarding circumcision.) Yes there are people who are gullible and believe ridiculous things but they are scoffed at and no one bothers making up Swoon Theories to explain them. How have Christians managed to cover up all the evidence of the people who knew the truth.

Back when I first heard Josh McDowell speak on the evidences for Christianity, he said that, of course, many people have died for a lie. What they don't do is die for something they know to be a lie.

Arguments from martyrdom are not designed to establish the truth of the claims in question. They are simply strong evidence that those who died sincerely believed in the propositions for which they were martyred. Yet, I keep hearing the skeptics argue that martyrdom doesn't prove the truth of anything, as if that was how Christians were arguing. This is a straw man. Martyrdom arguments are defeater-defeaters for deliberate fraud theories. Second, it's not the actual killing of the person that needs explaining. It's what I call martyrdom risk behavior. Here is a example of it, from Peter's speech outside the gate of Jerusalem:

"Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."

In other words, Peter is telling people whom he believed had the power to engineer a crucifixion, that God had vindicated Jesus and made him Lord and Christ. So you've got a guy who, before the cock crowed, showed shall we say a pretty normal concern for his own life, now telling people whom he believes had gotten somebody crucified, that God had resurrected Jesus.

Now unless this part of the story is legend, it certainly needs explanation. Even if Peter wasn't martyred, he's setting himself up for it here.

Yet, I keep hearing the skeptics argue that martyrdom doesn't prove the truth of anything, as if that was how Christians were arguing.

But that is what was being argued...at least that is exactly what it seemed like was being argued to me, not only from you, but other believers in the last few threads:

Credulity based on the actions of early Christians and the likelihood of Martyrdom or negative consequences.

It is an defeater argument because it doesn't tell us anything....it only tells us that proposing credulity based on the earnestness of other people isn't exactly proof of anything.

And that's the weakness of Christian apologetics in general.....the fact that most arguments used are equally prone to being used against Christianity.

There's a lot of guessing of motivations, and speculating about what people were thinking that can't be relied on.....because people act in strange and unpredictable ways and human psychology is not something neat and easy to pin down.

Most people have multiple reasons for being invested in a particular belief, or non-belief, system...some of them conscious, some of them subconscious....none of them exactly identical to others.

Now unless this part of the story is legend, it certainly needs explanation. Even if Peter wasn't martyred, he's setting himself up for it here.

Sounds like you answered your own question. Acts of the Apostles is more than likely a second century document of dubious historical value.

Seems odd to me that the multitudes in Jerusalem are all praising Jesus when he rides into Jerusalem on his donkey, yet in almost no time the crowds are all screaming "Crucify him", when Pilate brings Jesus before the people. Then shortly after Jesus' death the Jews are converting by the thousands because they feel guilty about getting the guy executed.

Different groups of people...just like stories where people were following Jesus and asking for his help while the Jewish leadership was disparaging him and plotting his death.

Think of a political candidate's supporters and detractors in a particular city....in some instances a crowd could consist of almost all supporters, and in others a crowd of detractors might show up for a key vote they want to protest.

Both are crowds...both are part of a particular community...both have opposite aims.

There is no way to label Paul's preaching "easy breezy believism" and retain a shred of intellectual credibility or dignity

Compared to Torah observant Jewish Christianity, Paul's religion is a breeze and would have attracted the multitude of Gentile God-Fearers who liked Judaism but not the strict adherence to Torah that went with it. I believe the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE helped to marginalize Jewish Christianity, paving the way for Paul's "lawless" Christianity to become the main player.

Different groups of people...just like stories where people were following Jesus and asking for his help while the Jewish leadership was disparaging him and plotting his death.

Then I wonder why Jesus' supporters did not bother to show up before Pilate and clamor to have him released? The Gospel stories just seem contrived to me.

The whole Barabbas story sounds made up. BTW, Barabbas means "Son of the Father". So we have a scene where Pilate offers to release either the Son of God or the Son of the Father. How bizarre is that? There also seems to be no historic precedent for Romans to release a prisoner on Jewish Holidays.

I don't get the sense that I am reading literal history with the Gospels. It feels more like pious fiction written to instill faith in the readers.

It's amazing how well your questions concerning the fickleness of the Jerusalem crowds parallel the themes of the Catholic Holy Week liturgy. Each year we are reminded in the Easter pageant how, as fallen humans, we loudly praise God one moment, and betray him in the very next through our continued sinfulness. I can recall dozens of sermons over the years saying the very things you considered problematic; that the very same people who were strewing palm branches in Our Lord's path one moment were crying for his execution in the next (actually, 5 days later).

Walter: Sounds like you answered your own question. Acts of the Apostles is more than likely a second century document of dubious historical value.

VR: This flies in the face of some hard evidence. Acts contains to much detailed first-century information that has been confirmed by archaeology to be accurate. Luke gets the titles right for the leaders for various cities before whom Paul appeared. This is especially interesting since in some cases the governmental forms changed in the middle of the first century. That was the whole point of my rhetorical "How did Luke research his novel" question I posed to Steven. This information is detailed in F. F. Bruce's THe New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable. You would have to go around the Mediterranean world getting arrested on a regular basis in order to know that much about the political and judicial systems of the time. And since those changed, nobody in the second century would have had that information available to them.

You can bring up problems with Luke's account that have to be dealt with if you are an inerrantist, but this is not about inerrancy, or calling Luke the greatest historian of the ancient world, or anything like that. All I am doing here is putting a cap on the idea that Acts is a late, legendary product. Luke had to be in a position to know exactly who you deal with in Cyprus, Achaia, Asia, in Ephesus, in Thessalonica, in Philippi, in Athens, and in Malta.

Now, whenever I bring this stuff up, I get told that, of course, Luke could get this stuff right, but the supernatural stuff wrong. Yes, he could. But the evidence takes the "late and legendary" option away from the critic.

A lot of these archaeological discoveries were made by Sir William Ramsay, who had originally subscribed to the late-dating theories of the Tubingen school. He abandoned that position when he found extensive archaeological evidence that confirmed the reliabilty of Luke's account, over and over again.

I'm not saying a supernatural explanation is proved by all of this, but the options for developing a skeptical counter-story are reduced considerably by this kind of evidence.

Currently, I am an on-the-fence agnostic with theistic sympathies. If I were ever to "re-convert", it probably would be some form of deism or classical unitarianism, as I find "orthodox" trinitarianism to be untenable for reasons too lengthy and numerous to post in a combox.

Followers

About Me

I am the author of C. S. Lewis's Dangerous Idea: In Defense of the Argument from Reason, published by Inter-Varsity Press. I received a Ph.D in philosophy from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 1989.